Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159234

Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS?

From Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Newsgroups alt.folklore.computers
Subject Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS?
Date 2016-02-13 17:13 +0100
Organization Me, Myself and I
Message-ID <o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> (permalink)
References <n9n71i$j1f$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

In article <n9n71i$j1f$1@dont-email.me>,
gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>What fun we could have should a nice, simple, easy 64-bit version
>of MS-DOS be around; the only thing to my mind that would
>be lacking would be a graphical Web interface.
>
>Imagine; a single linear address space, no software bloat
>(Even Linux is popping its trouser buttons), and only a few kBytes
>consumed by the OS!

Keep dreaming. 

A full-function, very basic modern OS will take around 4 megabytes
with only a handful of drivers if it handles a 64-bit address range, 
around 2.5 - 3 if it is a 32 bit range. Even Tops20, VMS, Primos are
there if you let them develop far enough; tops20 at version 6, 
Primos at version 23, vms at ???

Add the ~20k drivers that Linux, FreeBSD have, and add two dozen
subsystems like USB, Firewire, IPv4, Ipv6, SMB, etc; and they are
not too bad off either of them in terms of kernel and driver
space used. 

The bloat is on top of the kernel, and it is reasonably easy to
get rid of the bulk of it. 

Let me get to the numbers: This samsung chromebook I use as a 
laptop has a bloat level I like. It has a two-processor arm7 with
2G ram. 32-bit. Thumb2. 

There are 524288 4k pages. After memory map, cpu-reserved pages for
task switching, lookaside buffers, etc are allocated there are
519936. This is mostly memory map organisation use. The initial
load of linux+initramfs (a boot-time minimal ram file system that
Linux use to simplify the boot process; so it can proceed further
before actually adding any disks) takes 29334 pages. 

Linux then allocate pages here and there and has a max allocation
of 36440 pages before it frees the initramfs. This means that this
particular Linux installation; not even attempted to prune the size;
has a minimum boot requirement of (524288 - 519936) + 36440 of the
initial 524288 pages; or 40792, equal to 163168 kilobytes of RAM.

The initramfs is then freed, and Linux use 10305 pages, plus it 
allocates 6350 as a page cache. This is the overflow paging area
that can contain real user code, so it does not really count in
kernel use. After boot we therefore have a use of (524288 - 519936) 
+ 10305; or 14657 pages, equal to 58628 kilobytes.

Linux code is around half of this, and half again of that are
drivers.

Then systemd takes over, and all memory use goes haywire. The
old systems like X are still well within reason, X itself are
the biggest one of these at ~30M plus ~8M shared libraries. 
There are around 120 active processes, where the browser and
libreoffice are the hogs. The rest take around 250 megabytes
total. 

This is borne out from some freebsd web servers I run in
some very remote telemetry locations (but with excellent
connectivity). They run very well in 512M of ram.

>The downside would be that assuming that one could write one
>assembler instruction per minute in a 40-hour working week
>and a 46-week working year, allowing approximately 4 bytes
>for each instruction, then it would take you about 9,000 man-years
>to write enough code for a progran to completely fill 4GB of RAM!

That makes 9600 bytes per week,

When I write some high level language code I do make around 200
loc per day on average, and that generates 8-10 k of binary
code ex variables and buffers. This bears out the around 4-5
times productivity using higher level languages. So it would
only take around 2000 man years. :-/

Or 50 men, 40.

Of course, if I am REALLY productive then I am reducing the net
loc in the project.

-- mrr

Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 12:22 +0000
  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-13 07:29 -0600
  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 07:43 -0700
  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:13 +0100
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:18 +0000
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-13 18:29 +0100
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:51 +0100
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 15:52 -0800
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-13 20:51 -0600
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-13 22:19 -0500
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-14 15:19 +0000
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-14 11:51 -0500
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 18:00 -0600
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 13:09 -0600
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 17:58 -0600
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:00 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:42 -0500
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? mrr@sambook.reistad.name (Morten Reistad) - 2016-02-14 21:36 +0100
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-13 20:54 -0600
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 07:47 +0000
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 01:01 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 18:04 -0600
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 18:20 -0800
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:48 -0800
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-16 09:32 -0500
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-16 15:58 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 18:04 +0100
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 10:03 -0800
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:09 +1100
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-19 06:34 -0800
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-16 15:14 -0600
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:49 -0800
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 07:49 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:20 +1100
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 14:47 +0000
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-15 14:10 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:40 -0800
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 06:56 -0700
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:56 -0800
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:48 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 11:55 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 11:51 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-19 09:47 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 06:54 -0700
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-19 06:36 -0800
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 15:13 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-19 19:48 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:39 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:38 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:47 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:35 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 11:12 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 09:37 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:46 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:22 +1100
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 23:02 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:02 +1100
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-20 12:34 -0800
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:35 -0800
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 09:01 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 10:49 +0100
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 16:24 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-14 15:19 +0000
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:45 -0500
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:50 -0500
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 00:40 +0100
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:58 -0800
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-16 13:54 -0500
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 06:56 -0700
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:05 +1100
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 00:53 +0000
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 16:11 +0000
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:04 +0000
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-16 17:44 +0000
  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 08:47 -0800

csiph-web